I invented a software program that was accepted as world leader. The product needed financial backing to get to market to leverage its major potential. I met the Defender via a trusted third party. Agreements were formed between the Defender and myself, but such relied upon misrepresentations by the Defender and he later grossly breached such Agreements by deceptions and unlawful acts. The unlawful acts included criminal offences being investigated by Police Scotland. Despite destroying the entire value of the software, the Defender now prohibits me from using the property (to try and recover my livelihood or even working anywhere within my 30 year expert domain. I seek to have the Agreements annulled by reason that they were invalid as formed; and later and repeatedly grossly breached by the Defender. The Defender is a millionaire and I am now reduced to breadline (despite the fact that prior to the Defender's acts, Contracts for $5.4M USD were in advanced discussions. I seek to raise an Action to rectify all such. I have absolute proof of the Defender's misconduct and false denials / deceptions and other wrongful acts in the form of (lawfully) intercepted emails and even video/other recordings. Best regards ***** ***** John
The Defender is domiciled in Motherwell, thus the ground of jurisdiction is Hamilton Sheriff Court. I have already concluded that the action that I seek to pursue is primarily one to obtain an Order for Reduction.
My key objective is to regain my property rights unfettered. QUESTION: HOW MUCH WOULD YOU CHARGE TO STRUCTURE MY (INTENDED) WRIT BELOW INTO AN ACCEPTABLE FORM TO THE COURT?:
Form of initial writ
SHERIFFDOM OF HAMILTON
AT***** Hamilton, ML3 0PT.
Robert MacDowell Greer
The Pursuer craves the court grants an order for Reduction of all Agreements between the Pursuer and Defender; and orders the return of all associated property and Rights including all Intellectual Property Rights by the Defender to the Pursuer.
The Pursuer begs the Court’s indulgence over any lay error in the Pleas, but such is the result of the Pursuer’s impoverished condition whereby he cannot afford Legal advice and proceeds with only lay understanding of process.
As the Defender used misrepresentations and/or knowing deceptions of the Pursuer to obtain the Agreements, such knowing and material Defender Misrepresentations render the Agreements invalid as formed.
Other than by result of the Defender’s misrepresentations and/or knowing deceptions, there is no logical reason that the Pursuer or any party would accept the otherwise unbalanced and unfair Terms of such Agreements.
Even if such Agreements were ever valid, at least in part, the Defender later grossly and repeatedly breached such Agreements; and such breaches beyond any alternative or equitable rectification.
As such Defender breaches are so severe and fundamental, not least the Defender’s breaches of his core “Good faith” and fiduciary duties under such Agreements, such Defender breaches are irremediable and entirely void such Agreements.
Such Defender breaches include gross breaches of trust, not least the Defender seeking to personally profit from items of property that were in the Defender’s fiduciary care and that he did not own.
Contrary to duties of truth and proper conduct of business per CA2006, ss.170-177, the Defender knowingly, repeatedly and grossly misled the Pursuer, then his fellow Director and his shareholders, thereby breaching Law and the requirement to lawful conduct under said Agreements.
Contrary to further duties of lawful conduct, the Defender committed multiple, provable criminal offences to further his objectives. Such acts grossly breached the Agreements.
To cover his wrongdoing, the Defender issued multiple false denials of events and acts that can now be proven. Each of these many false denials was a further breach of the Defender’s duties under the Agreements of “Good faith” and to comply with Law.
To further entrap the Pursuer, the Defender knowingly lodged multiple false statutory documents with Companies House, representing the Pursuer to be a Director when the Defender clearly and fully knew the opposite facts.
All such Defender’s criminal acts are further, gross and irremediable breaches of the Defender’s duties in the Agreements and under the Companies Acts (CA2006, ss.170-177, 248 and 1112); and give further cause to dissolve all such Agreements.
The Defender’s entirely destroyed the Company and value in the Pursuer’s property and such conduct again, totally breached the Agreements.
The Pursuer craves that the Court restores the Pursuer’s original position of absolute ownership of what was formerly the Pursuer’s exclusive property and freedom of employment as such is necessary, reasonable, fair, equitable and just.
As the Defender has wilfully, repeatedly and irremediably breached the Agreements, the Defender’s acts invalidated all such Agreements.
All such Agreements should be dissolved by an Order of Reduction.
John Lyden, Pursuer.